HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Pangora	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	26 March 2025	
		
Parties: 	Rex v John Pangora 	
		
Date of hearing: 	24 March 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	143 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Keniapisia; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Mr. Pangora I sentence you to 11 years imprisonment. Your sentence term will begin to run from today’s date the 26th March 2025. Order accordingly.	
		
Representation: 	Ms Rehomora and Ms Cleven for the Crown 
Mr Waroka for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 S 136F (1) (a) and (b), S 136F(1)
Panel Code [cap 26] S 245, 	
		
Cases cited:	R v Sinatau [2023] SBCA 38, Regina v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22, R v Liufirara [2023] SBCA 10, Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39, Laui v DPP [1987] SBHC 4,	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 143 of 2024

REX

V

JOHN PANGORA 

Date of Hearing: 24 March 2025
Date of Sentence: 26 March 2025

Ms Rehomora and Ms Cleven for the Crown 
Mr Waroka for the Defendant 
Sentence and verdict 
1. 	By information filed 23/04/2024, Mr. John Pangora was indicted for three Counts. Counts 1 and 2, are for rape contrary to Section 136F (1) (a) and (b) of the 2016 Act. These 2 Counts are in relation to two separate rape incidences in the years 2020 and 2023. Mr. Pangora was alleged to have penial sexual intercourse with Miss. Catherine Koelangi twice.
2. 	Count 3, is for assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to Section 245 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 26). This is in relation to the alleged incident in the year 2023, that Mr. Pangora whipped the victim, Catherine with a stick, causing her actual bodily harm.
3. 	I arraigned Mr. Pangora on the 20/03/2025. He entered a guilty plea to all three Counts. I enter three convictions for the three Counts against Mr. Pangora premised on his guilty plea. I then adjourned to 24/03/2025 for the settlement of agreed facts and sentencing submissions. 
4. 	The settled facts show that: -
(i) 	John Pangora is from Reef Islands, Temotu Province. The complainant Catherine Koelangi is from Reef Islands, Temotu Province. She was born on 17 October 2006.  Defendant and the complainant lived in the same house at New Place village, Reef Islands, Temotu Province. Defendant is the complainant’s biological father. 
(ii) 	On an unknown date between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020, in the night, the complainant’s mother went to attend a house cry. The complainant was sleeping alone in her room. Her sister named Joyce went to Ngamubulou. Her brother Bapo was away at Gawa School.
(iii) 	The complainant was fast asleep when the defendant went into her room. She was sleeping underneath a mosquito net. She woke up when the defendant went inside the mosquito net and that he was already naked. 
(iv) 	The complainant asked who it was and the defendant replied “It’s me, be quiet, your mother and grandmother went to Ngamanie”. After that, the defendant asked to have sex with her. She replied and said “You are my father, why do you want to do this to me?’’ The defendant told her not to shout and that if she did, he will cut her neck with a knife.
(v) 	The complainant was very scared. She wanted to run away but she could not as there was no one around to help her. The defendant removed her skirt, sucked her breasts and kissed her. Then the defendant pushed his penis into the complainant’s vagina and had sex with her. The complainant felt pain and saw blood on her vagina. The defendant is the first person to have sex with her.
(vi) 	The defendant told the complainant not to tell anyone and if she tells anyone, he will kill her. The next morning, the complainant told her mother about what the defendant did to her but nothing was done about it.
(vii) 	On an unknown date between 1 April 2023 and 30 April 2023, at around midnight, the complainant’s mother went to cut nambo with her sister Emma at New Place village. The complainant wanted to follow her mother but her mother told her to sleep or go to her grandmother Ipe Langioplo. The complainant insisted to follow her mother because she was scared to stay alone with the defendant so she later followed her mother.
(viii) 	The complainant went to her aunt Gwen’s house at Ngamanuganopi settlement and stayed with them as they were still awake. After she spent part of the night there, she decided to go to her grandmother Ipe Langioplo. She followed the road to her house. Along the road, she met a boy named Innie Ipa so they had a chat. Whilst they were still chatting, the defendant approached them and chased after them.
(ix) 	When the defendant reached the complainant, he slapped her face. The defendant was very angry. The defendant held a stick and poked her back telling her, to go quickly, walking in front of him, as they walked back to their house. When they arrived at their house, the complainant’s mother was not at home.
(x) 	The defendant forced the complainant to lay down on the grass behind their house. Then he told her to remove her clothes. The complainant refused but the defendant forced her so, she lies down on the grass as the defendant instructed. The complainant wanted to shout but the defendant told her not to shout. The defendant threatened her that if she shouts, he will kill her. 
(xi) 	The defendant removed the complainant’s skirt, then he removed his own trousers. The defendant parted the complainant’s leg and sucked her breasts and licked her vagina. The defendant then pushed his penis into the complainant’s vagina and had sex with her. After that, the defendant told the complainant to stand up and go to sleep, so she stood up and went into her room.
(xii) 	When the complainant’s mother arrived, the defendant told her that, he saw the complainant having sex with a boy named Innie Ipa. That same night, the defendant took all the complainant’s clothes, including the clothes she wore, and burned them. The complainant was naked and stayed in her room the whole time. She found a bag so she used it to wrap it around her to cover her nakedness. 
(xiii) 	On 30 April 2023, the defendant called the complainant to go outside. The defendant cut a stick and took the complainant inside their kitchen. Then the defendant used his right hand to whip the complainant’s backside several times, with the stick. As a result, the complainant felt pain with blood running down her backside. Her backside became swollen. The complainant sustained multiple bruises at the back of her neck and backside.
(xiv) 	The complainant felt very bad and ashamed because she was still wearing the bag at the time when the defendant whipped her. The complainant went back into the house, sat down and cried as her body was also painful. Not long after, the defendant told the complainant’s mother to go and buy betelnut. At that time, the defendant was lying down in a hammock underneath their house. The defendant called the complainant, so she went outside to him. The defendant told her to go after him into the bush. The complainant did not follow him. At that time, she saw John Sae and Tealei’s dad at their house, so she felt safe.
(xv) 	The defendant returned from the bush and was starting to talk aggressively to the complainant but the complainant’s mother arrived so he kept quiet. At that time, the complainant wanted to drink water so she went to the tank. She then ran into the bush and hide until evening. In the evening, she went to David Leiau’s house where she was given clothes to wear. She spent the night there.
(xvi) 	On the next morning, on 1 May 2023, the complainant went to Manuopo police station and reported the matter. Thereafter investigation was carried out.
(xvii) 	The complainant was later taken to the Family Support Centre in Lata. She was assisted and taken to Lata Hospital on 3 May 2023 where she was examined.
5. 	The maximum penalty available for Counts 1 and 2 is life imprisonment denoting the offences are prima facie serious. However, the Court has power to impose a lesser sentence term. The first rape incident in Count 1 occurred in the year 2020, when Catherine was 14 years old. The second rape incident in Count 2 occurred in the year 2023, when Catherine was 16/17 years old. 
6. 	According to Sinatau, Court of Appeal 2023, the starting point sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15 years is 8 years. Accordingly, I set the start point sentence for Count 1 at 8 years.
7. 	I identify the following serious aggravating factors: -
(i) 	Breach of position of trust – This is the first and the worst aggravating factor against you. You are the victim’s father. You have a moral duty to protect your own daughter from all forms of sexual abuse and defilement. Instead you did the exact opposite to her due to your immoral sexual desires. That is a serious and regrettable inhuman breach of your moral duty as a father. In addition, family or blood ties between the parties have been sexually violated, meaning this is a domestic violence issue and calls for serious aggravation. Violence that occurs within the domestic relationship, let alone sexual violence (abuse) must be condemned, for it is an abuse of the family as a unit and must never go unpunished. We are a society that prides itself in worthy customs and cultures. It is our worthy custom to render love, care, respect and security to our daughters. It is a moral value and duty we cherish in custom, deeply rooted in blood relationship, kinship ties and fatherhood.
(ii) 	Abuse happened in the comfort of the home at night – Catherine was inside the comfort of her room at night, where she should be sleeping and was entitled to security and safety from Pangora, her father, in their house at Reef Islands. Instead Pangora turned that safety net in the home into a crime scene for his own daughter.  
(iii) 	Pre-planning – Sexual abuse that happens to a daughter in the home under the care and custody of her father must be pre-planned because this is something that is seriously wrong and should not be happening in the home. Therefore, the father to be doing this unusual thing in the home needs some kind of prior thoughts, preplanning and careful execution of plans on the part of the accused. Accused cannot say it was a coincidence.
(iv) 	Psychological harm and trauma – In terms of trauma and psychological harm, Court should always take judicial notice of the long-term impacts and trauma on the victim despite lack of professional and medical evidence (Bonuga, 2014 Court of Appeal). Despite lack of observable physical harm, in all rape or sexual offence cases, the level of psychological harm that creates ongoing issues for the victim is well documented and can be taken judicial notice of as per Bonuga (Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2023).
(v) 	Physical harm/injury – Pangora first raped his daughter complainant when she was just 14 years old in the year 2020. It is hard to imagine how a teenage girl of 14 years old could subsist such penial sexual rape abuse. Catherine felt a lot of pain in her vagina and saw blood inside her vagina. There is no doubt her virginity and sexual purity was crushed. The very act of rape is physical violation of a victim and physical harm is inherent in it (R v Liufirara [2023] SBCA 10; SICOA-CRAC 30 of 2022 (28 April 2023).
(vi) 	Young age of the victim – Catherine was 14 years of age in 2020, when you raped her. According to Sinatau, Court of Appeal 2023 the age of the victim can be taken into account both in setting a starting point and when considering aggravating factors. The aggravating effect will usually be greater, the younger the child (victim). At 14 years your daughter was just a teenager. She was considered a very young child/girl in terms of her sexual intactness, purity, virginity and dignity, all of which are highly treasured for young girls under 15 years or 18 years. Furthermore, Catherine was too young for her cerebral innocence to be taken away in such a cruel manner. Your sexually abusive actions took away her right as a child or daughter to create long-lasting, safe and happy memories and replace them with nudity, and sexual violence that is traumatic and forever will be instilled in her memories with adverse lasting effects on her mentality.
(vii) 	Weak and vulnerable – A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited by an attacker. A male is stronger than a female, in terms of their gender composition. In this case Pangora exerted his strength over the weak and vulnerable Catherine when he just walked into Catherine’s room and climb on top of her and told her not to shout. You saw fit to exploit her vulnerable and weak gender to achieve your sexual desires. The weak cannot fight back. The strong will exploit that weakness to exert control and power to achieve his will over the weak gender, as it happened to Catherine here in her room alone under cover of darkness. 
(viii) 	Disparity of age – Pangora was over 40 years old, while Catherine was 14 years old at the time of first rape in 2020. The age gap here is over 20 years. As an adult and as the father, you were expected and accountable to protect her from this type of offending (Ramaia case).
(ix) 	Repetition – Repetitive harm caused on the same person is a serious aggravation.
(x) 	Use of weapon, force and threat – In the second rape incident you used a stick and whipped the victim and aggressively led her back to your house after seeing her with a young boy at night. Then under the environment of fear and threat you forced her to lie on the grass behind your house and had sexual intercourse with her. From what we know, only the dogs can do this.
(xi) 	Pretend, lies, fake discipline and destroy clothes – In the second incident, you saw your daughter with a young boy at night. Then you pretended that you were angry and wanted to discipline your daughter. You took a stick and whipped her. In the pretext of discipline, you led her back to your house only to have sex with her outside on the lawn behind your house. Then you continued to lie to her mother the next day that she was caught with a boy the previous night and went on to burn all her clothes. You raped her and went on to burn all her clothes. She was only left to wear an empty bag she found at your house to cover her nakedness? I wonder what was going on in your mind. The manner you secured sex on the second incident was grossly inhuman under the pretext of discipline.
8. 	For 8 of the above 11 serious aggravating factors combined (ix, x and xi are reserved for Count 2), I will uplift the start point sentence for Count 1 by 8 more years (1 year for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravating factors should be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal 2023). That will bring me to 16 years head sentence before mitigation.
9. 	I determine the following mitigating factors to reduce the head sentence downwards: -
(i)	Guilty plea – I give 30% reduction (4.8 years rounded to 5 years) due to the apparent established multiple benefits to all parties including the Court.
(ii)	First time offender with no previous conviction – I give 2 years reduction.
(iii)	Delay – There has been some delays since 2020, when the first offence was committed. There is not much delay in the High Court. I give 1-year reduction. 
(iv)	Time spent in custody and personal circumstances of the defendant – Mr. Pangora spent 5 months in custody prior to conviction and sentence. I award 1 year to cover for time spent in custody and personal circumstances, the latter being a factor I should take less heed of.
(v)	Rehabilitation and cooperation with the police – I award 1-year reduction.
10. 	The final head sentence after mitigation for Count 1 is 6 years.
11. 	The second rape incident in Count 2 occurred in the year 2023. Catherine was 16/17 years old. I will set the start point sentence at 8 years according to Sinatau. This is a sexual offence under Section 136F (1) of the 2016 Act and a non-contested matter for a child under the age of consent. Catherine was still a child by virtue of the definition of child under the 2016 Act. Hence, she was still under the age of consent.
12. 	I took this stance knowing that the 2016 Act was enacted to remedy the mischief of the prevalence of sexual offences, sexual abuses and sexual violence against female children, by their domestic male perpetrators. Sexual abuses of children must be condemned and punished severely, by setting a higher start point sentence.
13. 	I determine the same 8 serious aggravating factors as in Count 1 above and uplift the sentence by 8 more years. I will add three more serious aggravating factors namely; (i). repetition, (ii). use of weapon, threat and force and (iii). pretence, lies, fake discipline and destroying belongings. For these 3 additional serious aggravating factors, I will uplift the sentence by 7 more years. This is a significant uplift and is justified because the second repetitive rape (harm) on the same victim, is more serious than the first and must be condemned and punished harshly. That brings me to an inflated head sentence of 23 years before mitigation.
14. 	Then I reduce the 23 years head sentence down due to the same mitigation factors noted for Count 1, plus 2 more years because 30 percent of 23 years total head sentence for Count 2 gives me 7 years instead of 5 years reduction for guilty plea. The total reduced head sentence after mitigation for Count 2 is 11 years.
15. 	For the last count of assault causing actual bodily harm the maximum punishment available is 5 years imprisonment. This is the lesser offence of the 3 Counts. 
16. 	I put the start point sentence at 2 years. I inflate that by 10 years due to the same aggravating factors for Counts 1 and 2 above. That brings me to 12 years head sentence before mitigation. I reduce it by 10 years for the same mitigating factors above. That will bring the head sentence down to 2 years.
17. 	I will make the sentence terms for Counts 1 and 3 to run concurrent with the sentence for Count 2. The defendant will serve 11 years imprisonment only instead of 19 years. Counsel agreed that there should be a concurrent sentence, because the 3 sentence terms are for a series of offences committed against the same person (Catherine) even though spread over a lengthy period between the years 2020 to 2023 (Laui v DPP [1987] SBHC 4). This is a very lenient sentence compared to other similar cases with heavier punishments I imposed for rape. For your case, your guilty plea has saved the day for you. 
18. 	This Court has a duty to see that the sentences it imposed gives out a powerful deterrent factor to prevent the commission of such offences. Offenders must receive harsher punishments to mark society’s outrage and denunciation against sexual abuse of women and girls. The main purpose of the punishment I give here is to condemn your action and to protect the public from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to you and others with similar impulses, that anyone who yields to this kind of crime will meet with severe punishments.
19. 	As I stand back and look at the circumstances of the case and ask whether the merit justify the sentence term imposed, I can say that it is a fair sentence term when you consider that the maximum penalty available is life imprisonment and the gravity of rape and the manner to which you so inhumanly secured sex with your own daughter twice is disgusting. This sentence reflects the gravity of the two offences and accords well with Parliament’s legislative intent to protect women and girls from sexual abuse under the 2016 Act.
20. 	Mr. Pangora I sentence you to 11 years imprisonment. Your sentence term will begin to run from today’s date the 26th March 2025. Order accordingly.
THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE